Principia Discordia > Literate Chaotic
The Scrapyard --or-- CNO's brain dump
chaotic neutral observer:
A.
In 1945, The United States was presented with the necessity of invading Japan in order to end the war. Such an invasion would cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and would leave Japan in ruins. The Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death, with even schoolgirls being trained to fight with bamboo spears. Having little choice, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th, and, when the Japanese failed to surrender, dropped a second on Nagasaki on August 9th.
Faced with the overwhelming destructive force of this new weapon, Emperor Hirohito surrendered to the Allies a few days later.
B.
In 1945, the Japanese navy was in tatters, and despite publicly declaring they would fight to the end, were quietly attempting to negotiate with the Soviet Union.
At the same time, the Americans, eager to bring a quick end to a war that had already dragged on too long, and wishing to make a show of strength to establish their position in the post-war world (especially, to demonstrate their technical superiority to the U.S.S.R.) dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This also served as a field test of their new weapon, which had only been detonated once before.
Despite the devastation, this was not enough to cause Japan's surrender; the earlier fire-bombing of Tokyo had been even more destructive, and the Japanese believed (correctly) that the Americans only had a few of these bombs.
The situation changed abruptly with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9th. Outnumbered, outgunned, facing imminent defeat on the Asian mainland, and having little standing left to negotiate from, the Japanese surrendered on August 15th.
The first deployment of a doomsday weapon was not only unnecessary, but unsuccessful in achieving its stated objective.
(A) is the official story, or how I remember it, anyway. (B) is paraphrased from Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States."
Why do I find it easier to believe the version that paints humanity in a worse light?
Doktor Howl:
--- Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on August 27, 2019, 04:26:41 am ---A.
In 1945, The United States was presented with the necessity of invading Japan in order to end the war. Such an invasion would cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and would leave Japan in ruins. The Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death, with even schoolgirls being trained to fight with bamboo spears. Having little choice, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th, and, when the Japanese failed to surrender, dropped a second on Nagasaki on August 9th.
Faced with the overwhelming destructive force of this new weapon, Emperor Hirohito surrendered to the Allies a few days later.
B.
In 1945, the Japanese navy was in tatters, and despite publicly declaring they would fight to the end, were quietly attempting to negotiate with the Soviet Union.
At the same time, the Americans, eager to bring a quick end to a war that had already dragged on too long, and wishing to make a show of strength to establish their position in the post-war world (especially, to demonstrate their technical superiority to the U.S.S.R.) dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This also served as a field test of their new weapon, which had only been detonated once before.
Despite the devastation, this was not enough to cause Japan's surrender; the earlier fire-bombing of Tokyo had been even more destructive, and the Japanese believed (correctly) that the Americans only had a few of these bombs.
The situation changed abruptly with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9th. Outnumbered, outgunned, facing imminent defeat on the Asian mainland, and having little standing left to negotiate from, the Japanese surrendered on August 15th.
The first deployment of a doomsday weapon was not only unnecessary, but unsuccessful in achieving its stated objective.
--- End quote ---
It was perfectly successful in achieving its actual objectives. All 3 of them.
chaotic neutral observer:
--- Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 27, 2019, 03:25:42 pm ---
--- Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on August 27, 2019, 04:26:41 am ---
The first deployment of a doomsday weapon was not only unnecessary, but unsuccessful in achieving its stated objective.
--- End quote ---
It was perfectly successful in achieving its actual objectives. All 3 of them.
--- End quote ---
It was the first detonation of a uranium-based device (Trinity was plutonium), which doubtless provided lots of data on the effects of dropping a bomb on a populated city. It also got a lot of international attention, which helped to set the stage for the Pax Americana. But what was the third objective? I'm drawing a blank.
Doktor Howl:
--- Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on August 27, 2019, 03:39:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 27, 2019, 03:25:42 pm ---
--- Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on August 27, 2019, 04:26:41 am ---
The first deployment of a doomsday weapon was not only unnecessary, but unsuccessful in achieving its stated objective.
--- End quote ---
It was perfectly successful in achieving its actual objectives. All 3 of them.
--- End quote ---
It was the first detonation of a uranium-based device (Trinity was plutonium), which doubtless provided lots of data on the effects of dropping a bomb on a populated city. It also got a lot of international attention, which helped to set the stage for the Pax Americana. But what was the third objective? I'm drawing a blank.
--- End quote ---
The three objectives:
1. Imply that the idea of global conflict as a tool of statecraft is dead.
2. Get everyone's (by which I mean "Russia") attention.
3. This is what you get WHEN YOU FUCK WITH US.
All three of these are valid reasons, though not sufficient to warrant the use of the bomb, even collectively.
But then again, it was that kind of war.
Doktor Howl:
--- Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on August 26, 2019, 12:21:35 am ---You say you love your country, are willing to kill for it, even die for it.
I don't know what you mean.
The idea of "country" is abstract, and maps to a number of different realities.
Do you love your government? Because, speaking as a foreigner, your government is the most visible manifestation of your country, and.. uuh... that's incredibly stupid of you.
Do you love the lines on the map? Is this patch of sand worthy, but the one on the other side of the fence of less value, somehow? Seems arbitrary.
Do you love the geography, the countryside, the trees, the grass, the sky? That I get, but that isn't really what most people think of, when you say "country." Say you love nature, or something.
Do you love the people, the culture? Well, I get that too, but you shouldn't confuse that with the idea of the country as a whole. If you join the military, you're just signing yourself up as a particular type of government employee. I can see how you might like it as a job, but don't get the idea that there's some greater good involved. "Boots on the ground" do make a difference, but unless you're fighting WW3, your efforts are best spent locally, not halfway across the globe.
--- End quote ---
I stated this very same concept here back in 2005 or so.
"When you say 'your country' do you mean the constitution nobody pays attention to, the real estate, or 312,000,000 dysfunctional primates?"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version